April 28, 2012

I stumbled across this article in the Washington Square News, which is the NYU student newspaper, because my Google alert on NYU School of Law (my alma mater) brought in a headline — "V.P. Biden visits NYU, praises Obama" — that made me click over to the site.

Okay, first, the Biden stuff:

In his speech, Biden framed the victories the president has won. He also discounted Romney's remarks against Obama's foreign policy. "Romney wants to take us back to the past we've worked so hard to move beyond," Biden said. "He is looking through the glass of a rear-view window."...

CAS sophomore Danielle Herring left the talk convinced that she will be voting for Obama in November. "I was expecting more of a speech on foreign policy in general, more of an overview on what America is planning on doing in the future," Herring said. "But I think it did a good job of explaining our foreign policy and what America has done in the last four years."

So then Biden was looking through the glass of a rear-view window. Whatever. At least he convinced Danielle Herring that she will be voting for Obama.

Now, check out the article about the filmmaker — Tao Lin, an NYU alumnus — who's made a documentary about a 17-year old female blogger. The film "tails the up-and-coming blogger through one night in Las Vegas, her hometown."

"The simple, utilitarian storytelling set against the absurd, over-the-top backdrop of Vegas calls to mind the similar tone of Lin's books," reads a description of the film on MDMA's website. "Bebe Zeva provides an opportunity to see [Tao Lin's] literary aesthetic translated into the world of cinema."

Sounds interesting. But then I clicked through to the trailer for the film and... wow...

That is not the right way to use a minor. The literary aesthetic translated into the world of cinema literally nauseated me.

I just don't see the point of the "rear view" snark that Althouse makes. If she or you or whomever, thinks he's wrong about foreign policy--a position many of you have long espoused, then, to quote Althouse, "whatever." Or if you prefer, "whatevs."

But there's nothing structurally off about his comments, in the way she implies. Snarky deconstruction, when used, ought to at least have Some grounding in reality. Otherwise it's just evidence of--what was your word for it?--hack[ery].

harrogate said...But there's nothing structurally off about his comments, in the way she implies.Comment deletedThis comment has been removed by the author.4/28/12 11:55 AM

Althouse was pointing out the disconnect between Biden's critique of Romney and the take-away from Biden's speech by the student who said she'd vote Obama-Biden.

Biden: "Romney wants to take us back to the past we've worked so hard to move beyond," Biden said. "He is looking through the glass of a rear-view window."

Herring: "I was expecting more of a speech on foreign policy in general, more of an overview on what America is planning on doing in the future. But I think it did a good job of explaining our foreign policy and what America has done in the last four years.

Althouse: "So then Biden was looking through the glass of a rear-view window. Whatever."

That was not the right way to use a mirror--not in the film nor in Biden's metaphor.

Romney is not "looking through the glass of a rear-view window"--that implies that he has his head on backwards or is doing a 180 while driving. Romney just has one eye on the rear view mirror while looking straight ahead--better to keep an eye on the thugs trying to overtake his slight lead.

Wasn't Biden a diversity hire--picked to "balance the ticket"? Out here, I've heard more about his wife Jill's good works than anything he's done. He sucks at whatever he does. JMHO

It's clear WHY someone might, especially if engaged in hackery or on a good drunk, think that the student's "takeaway" line disconnects from the VP's comments. 'OMG OMG they're both about the PAAAAAASSSSSSTTTTT. Whatever.'

How about Americans admit that most teenagers done with the "minor" thing at sixteen? Instead of coddling them into their twenties and making condescending remarks about how a girl of seventeen is incapable of making her own decisions.

(Yes, some kids aren't ready for adulthood at sixteen--my second son for example. Some aren't ready at twenty and some are never ready. But enough of this nonsense of trying to legally enforce an idealized childhood that was an exception in human history, not the rule. One point of being able to grow up is being given the opportunity to make mistakes. Protecting kids from doing so, does them and society no favors.)

How about Americans admit that most teenagers done with the "minor" thing at sixteen? Instead of coddling them into their twenties and making condescending remarks about how a girl of seventeen is incapable of making her own decisions.

There is nothing in modern culture or common methods of child rearing that would make her an adult in her teens.

You can't bring them up to be children and treat them as adults when it suits your purposes.

It's one thing if a teenager were to make a movie like this about herself. It's quite another for an adult to do so.

Maybe Lin is gay, and he thinks that somehow gives him more leeway, lets him off the hook in a way? (NB I have no idea whatsoever whether that's the case, never heard of the guy before). Well, it doesn't. I think I'd find this just as creepy if it was a woman director instead of a man.

I allow for the possibility that this is a kneejerk reaction, and that if I were to see the whole film I might revise my opinion.

What's nauseating isn't even so much (or just) the exploitation of this girl's sexuality, or the precocious/ immature self-display the movie elicits from its subject, but something about how this movies flaunts the relationship between director and (minor) subject. The giddy BFF-ness of it. The question of trust/ betrayal between director and subject in documentaries is a fundamental and perennial one (which comes up in one way or another in virtually every doc). I've never realized this before (before thinking about this post), but I think something I may ethically require from documentaries is at least a momentary marker or acknowledgment of a boundary/ distance-- a moment of wariness/ distrust from the subject, a moment in which the director's position as necessarily unreliable narrator is foregrounded.